Comments on: Hollinger: Teams should trade for Austin Daye

By: frankie d

frankie d — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 20:46:25 +0000

@apa8
you seem to have a problem with basic reading comprehension as you continue to misrepresent what i write.
in fact, your post above is so illogical that it is tough to respond.
but i will try.
my position on macklin has been simple and consistent: the team doesn’t know what he can do, and i certainly don’t know what he can do. the only way to find out what he can do in the nba is to put him on the court and let him play.
i’ve never, ever said anything about him replacing amir, and the fact that you would imply that i ever said such a thing is simply dishonest.
(my view is that he’ll be very different from amir, if he is successful. amir was a defensive-focused, rebounding shotblocker. from what little i’ve seen of macklin in college and the nba and what has been reported, macklin is much more of an offensive big man. personally, i’ve never thought that macklin could bring to the team what amir brought. and i’ve never said anything of the sort.)
you have a very bad habit of taking what i write, adding your perspective to what i write and then proceeding as though i’d written what you perceive i’ve written. you can interpret what i write in any way you wish. but you seem to have a problem distinguishing between your interpretation and the actual substance of what i write.
don’t you understand the difference?
@ tarsier
you essentially confirm what i’ve argued: that the team has not replaced AA and amir. i never sought to compare stuckey and AA. i did not do that. my point was simple: what players have replaced those two players since they were traded.
you admitted that i was correct. this is your statement:
“And yeah, Afflalo and Amir have not been replaced as of yet.”
thanks.

By: frankie d

frankie d — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:32:25 +0000

who knows how many players you have to go through to get that one jewel.
but you keep pursuing talent.
i’d keep the last two spots on my roster pretty much open as a revolving audition seat.
bring in young guys, try em out and either keep em or ditch them according to fit.
joe d is doing the rebuilding thing a@@ backwards.
he’s signing 29 year old rookies out of the d-league.
he’s giving valuable rotation PT to 30+ year olds who have no future with the team.
he’s siging 31 year old vets to 4 year contracts and giving them starting nods and heavy PT at the expense of his young guys.
he’s letting his young, recent first round choices collect splinters on the bench and when their value is at its lowest, he trades them.
this is not how rebuilding teams rebuild. in fact, it is pretty much the total opposite of what rebuilding teams do.
rebuilding teams usually try to find young d-league players in the hope that they might find a young guy who will contribute to the future of the team.
they usually don’t give prominent roles and PT to over-30 journeymen and 15 year vets on the verge of retirement.
they usually don’t lock in 31 year old players at positions where they have young players trying to get PT.
they usually “snatch” as much young talent from other teams, rather than being the team that dumps such talent.
joe dumars is in the bizarro world of rebuilding…where everything is opposite of what it normally is.
now, if this unorthodox approach was successful, i’d say great, do it your own way.
but the fact is joe has presided over a uniquely bad disintegration of a title team. his approach has resulted in a once excellent team devolving into one of the league’s worst, in almost the blink of an eye, due, solely to his own decisions and moves.
the team is one of the league’s worst. has been one of the league’s worst for almost 3 years now, and there is not much hope in the near future – two years or so – other than hoping for lucky lottery balls.
once upon a time joe was a great league exec.
i have no idea what happened, but it is absolutely clear that he doesn’t have a clue now.

By: frankie d

frankie d — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 19:10:28 +0000

bogut hasn’t been right since he busted his elbow. just isn’t the same player. too bad, cause a pre-injury bogut was a real force. he may never be the same player.

By: Max

Max — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:50:53 +0000

Since Nate Thurmond. HAHA.

By: Max

Max — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:49:09 +0000

@FrankieD……How many players does a team need to body snatch before they have one reliable player for their effots? You’re complaining about a dynamic where the player who pans out for his new team is the exception rather than the rule. Many players fail with their first team and then get another shot or two. Most of these players fail with their new teams and are eventually gone from the league. In the minority, some players who have utterly failed with one team succeed with another and that’s why teams take chances and turn over their talent each year but all of this doesn’t make it stupid for teams to give up on their failed players because most will fail in their new location too. Most players don’t make it and there’s no shame because it’s a difficult league and difficult to project how players will fit in.

By: Max

Max — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:37:29 +0000

Otis Smith.

By: Max

Max — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 18:35:00 +0000

You don’t need to replace a player who doesn’t contribute anything.

By: apa8ren9

apa8ren9 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:30:00 +0000

@frankie, if you dont think that Macklin can replace Amir then why do you keep championing him. Its not like Johnson is an allstar level. 25 mins a game these are his stats from NBA.com
2011-12 Statistics
PPG7.6 RPG6.80 APG1.3 EFF+ 12.95

You say Macklin cant replace Amir,that it is laughable (not even in the realm of possibility) then you say who knows– which one is it Frankie? If he cant replicate these stats or come close to them then why should he even be considered for playing time. If the bar for Macklin is that low and he cant reach it. Why would we waste time developing him in your scenario? I really want to know because you seem to be talking out of both sides and if you could clarify I would appreciate it

By: frankie d

frankie d — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:14:17 +0000

a second round/late first is about the going rate for a guy like daye now.
you can add a guy i wanted detroit to draft, instead of daye, to the list: james johnson.
chicago traded him for a first rounder last year, after johnson had even less impact than daye had had during his first year and a half.
my problem with those kinds of trades is that they are exactly as hollinger described: body snatching, stealing talented young players because their current teams haven’t figured out how to deal with them.
the teams getting those guys get great deals, usually, and the teams dealing those guys usually get very little in return other than getting rid of a headache. and they may need a little bit of cap space also, and they sacrifice the player for that cap space.
the better way to go is to be patient and only make a trade that will benefit your team.
portland traded martell webster, a guy who was a bit of a bust and was up and down, in and out of the rotation, injured, for a mid first. but they kept him around for 5 years, righted his career and ultimately made a decent deal, even though it was always clear that he never fit into mcmillan’s plans.
why should detroit make a “bodysnatching” kind of trade at this point? makes no sense from an organizational point of view.
unless there is some imperative, keep him and try to work things out.
instead of trading potentially good young players for less than their market value, dumars should be looking at trading maxiell. he will probably never have more value than he has now. a team looking to make a playoff run could absolutely use a guy who can provide the impact he can have on a game.
he can probably fetch a first rounder from some team that is going to make a run.
that is the kind of trade that joe should be making: trading older assets that he can turn into younger players who will fit his new contending team.
btw, i think laser describes daye’s drafting well. it was absurd, unless you were going to commit to developing daye long term. everyone knew he was a project who would take years to develop, if he developed. the idea was that if you drafted him, a team was going to invest those years in order to get a quality player in the end. there were known and serious problems with his body and his maturity. read the draft reports on the guy.
i hated the daye choice, especially because they drafted him as a “PF” something i knew was ridiculous, having seen lots of gonzaga BB when he played. i liked johnson, and failing drafting him, i was open to any of the nice point guards who were taken almost immediately after daye and johnson went: lawson, collison, maynor, holliday.
but joe drafted him, and, imho, has the duty to try to make a player out of him, as best he can. he knew there were going to be ups and downs when he drafted him. to act as though it is surprising that the process is bumpy is truly absurd.
trading him for a high second would certainly be “typical” but it is also an admission of failure.

By: apa8ren9

apa8ren9 — Wed, 14 Mar 2012 17:09:25 +0000

If he doesnt have any value in a trade now as a player, then the value is in the contract. He is getting paid more next year. There in lies the value. Now where we disagree is how much. Its not a lot, but its an expiring deal for a new team. If he works out for them they can resign him. If not then nothing lost and you get a 3 million dollar cap relief. Very little risk for the next team. I dont think we are disagreeing that much.